MS. PERINO: Good morning. The President will make remarks at 1:10 p.m.
today on the South Lawn, on volunteerism; a word about that. After
9/11, President Bush called on all Americans to serve their communities,
their nation, and the world. In his 2002 State of the Union address he
announced the creation of USA Freedom Corps, and also called for every
American to commit at least two years -- which is 4,000 hours -- to the
service of their neighbors and their nation.

Today the President will host an event that highlights USA Freedom Corps
and honors America's volunteers who serve at home and abroad. During
his remarks to over 1,800 volunteers the President will point out a few
facts. One, in 2002, the administration became the first to conduct a
regular survey of volunteerism through the U.S. Census Bureau. And
because we have begun to measure we now know some facts that we didn't
know before, such as nearly 61 million Americans now give their time to
help their neighbors. That's an increase of more than 1 million since
2002.

His administration has helped Americans answer the call to service by
creating the Citizen Corps, which now has nearly 1 million volunteers,
and a new program called Volunteers for Prosperity. The administration
has strengthened AmeriCorps, and today more than 74,000 people serve
their fellow citizens through that organization.

The administration has also expanded Peace Corps. Since 2002, the
administration has provided this great program with its highest level of
funding in history, and we have increased the number of Peace Corps
volunteers and have opened or reopened programs in 13 programs.

Finally, he will note that since the post-Katrina uptick up in
volunteerism, things have started to taper off. Today he will repeat
his call for Americans to devote 4,000 hours over their lifetimes in
service to their fellow citizens.

Also a word about the housing matter. I'm sure you saw the announcement
yesterday that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, determined that these housing mortgage
companies could not continue to operate in a way that was safe and sound
and still fulfill their public mission to support housing.

And so FA and Secretary Paulson announced a plan to take over and
prevent further deterioration from affecting the broader economy,
especially the availability of credit for home mortgages, consumer
credit, and business lending.

The plan that Secretary Paulson outlined had three very important goals:
first and foremost, promoting market stability; ensuring the
availability and affordability of home mortgages; and protecting the
taxpayer. The President is confident that these are the appropriate
goals, and that the plan outlined will be successful.

Throughout these discussions, the President was continuously briefed by
Secretary Paulson, and discussed the policy options. The President gave
Secretary Paulson his full support to put the right plan in place to
protect the U.S. economy.

This is not a step that the administration was anxious to take. And in
fact, it is exactly the kind of event we've warned about and tried to
prevent over the years. Remember that we have highlighted the systemic
risk posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of the very large role
they play in housing markets, and because of their business practices.

And for years we have encouraged Congress to put in place a strong,
independent regulator to oversee the institutions. We believe the
actions will help to improve conditions in the housing market. Our
economy will not return to a strong job growth until the housing
correction is behind us. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are critical to
turning the corner on housing, and so it's important that in a plan the
primary mission of Fannie and Freddie be to work to increase the
availability and affordability of mortgage finance.

The plan also gives time for Congress and the next administration to
determine the appropriate role of the companies in the future. Whatever
eventual long-term solution is decided for Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac,
it is crucial that they are reformed so that they do not pose similar
risks to our economy or the financial system again.

And finally, today we welcome back to Washington D.C., members of
Congress who have been on their August recess. There's much work to be
done, and not a lot of time to do it in. There are many legislative
priorities that we have. And we would like to work with Congress in a
bipartisan way to deal with things like appropriations bills; energy
bill -- one that would allow for increased safe, environmentally
friendly production of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, improved
technologies so that we could access oil shale, refinery expansion, and
extending renewable energy tax credits. There's the highway trust fund
that needs to be dealt with. There are judges that need to be
confirmed. There's FAA authorization. There's the AMT and the tax
extender issue, not to mention the free trade agreements, U.S.-India
civil nuclear agreement, NATO expansion for Croatia and Albania, and
U.S.-UK and U.S.-Australia defense trade cooperation treaties.

That is not an exhaustive list, but it does provide you an idea of how
much work Congress needs to get done within the next three weeks.

With that, I'll go to questions. Ben.

Q Dana, on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you've outlined the risk to
taxpayers and the economy if these companies were to fail. But what
about the risk to taxpayers now that the government has taken them over
and assumed that debt? Is that a risk that the White House is concerned
about?

MS. PERINO: President Bush thinks that the move that Secretary Paulson
worked on is the right move at the right time. And this is not action
that we wanted to take, it's action that we needed to take. The goal is
to prevent additional risk to the taxpayers, and in this plan Secretary
Paulson has moved forward to make sure that the taxpayers would be paid
back first. If you're a shareholder or you're top management of these
companies today, it's not a very bright day for you. And taxpayer money
will be safeguarded to the greatest extent possible.

Secretary Paulson and others made the determination in working through
the options, and then finally talking with the President, that this was
the best way to prevent a broader financial problem for our capital
markets here in the United States, but also globally.

Q And just to follow up on that, about the administration not being
anxious to take that step, why is that? Could you flesh out a little
bit more what the concern is or why this is a step that the
administration was hesitant to take?

MS. PERINO: Well, going back years, this administration has advocated
for reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has been reluctant
to move forward on those for many years, and in fact, didn't even take
it real seriously until this crisis emerged -- and we finally got some
of that legislation I think in early August or late July.

The reason that we're -- we didn't want to have to take this action is
we prefer for Congress to take care of its own business. Remember,
these are congressionally chartered companies, and it's appropriate that
Congress have a role in saying how they're going to move forward in the
future. And that's why Congress will have a chance when they get back
over this next period and also into the next administration to decide
how to move forward with them.

Q Dana, could you expand a bit, in terms of the President's sort of
philosophical underpinning -- this is not exactly limited government,
this takeover. So how concerned was he -- just in terms of conservative
political ideology, how concerned was he about doing something that
seems to be sort of the opposite of all of that?

MS. PERINO: Well, it's again -- President Bush initiated a call years
ago to try to reform this system because he did not want the status quo
to continue. Unfortunately, Congress didn't act on that. And the
systemic risk that was posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our entire
economy was one that the President felt it was more important to deal
with now, and start to work on now, so that the next administration
would be able to work with the Congress and figure out a way to make
sure that this would not be allowed to happen again. And so far,
cooperation with Congress since this announcement has been very good.

Q But, I mean, I imagine it's -- there are -- does this mark a change
in the President's thinking, in terms of there are times where you do
need big government action and intervention?

MS. PERINO: Remember, these are congressionally chartered companies, so
the government is involved in these companies whether we've liked it or
not.

Q There's a difference between charger and take over.

MS. PERINO: It became clear that these companies were not going to be
able to continue to function the way that they were, and that the whole
system was at risk -- not only here in our country, but also affecting
global markets. And so given that they were already part of a
quasi-federal government agency, it's only appropriate that the
President take this action. And Secretary Paulson, he believes, came up
with the right mix with this conservatorship -- which I'm not an expert
in, but Secretary Paulson has spoken about it today.

Q Was there ever -- or to what degree were you hearing, was the White
House hearing from opponents of the idea? How much push back was there
about doing something like a big takeover?

MS. PERINO: As I said, I think that the cooperation we've had from
members of Congress and from the companies, themselves, is emblematic of
the fact that people recognized that the status quo was not going to
suffice anymore.

And the turmoil that would have resulted from a failure of these two
companies would have directly impacted households everywhere --
household wealth, our buying power, our ability to save for college or
our savings for retirement, ability to get loans -- not just home loans,
but auto loans -- everything that makes our economy work. So the
President thought it was absolutely appropriate that we move forward.
And as I said, the cooperation so far has been very good.

Q It's up to about $200 billion that's being guaranteed by this.
What's the expectation of the administration about how much will -- how
much taxpayer money will actually have to -- you'll actually have to
come up with to help secure these companies?

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to Secretary Paulson, who said this morning
that -- he said it would be as little as possible, and I think the
initial request was for $5 billion, but up to $200 billion. He said he
doesn't know yet what that would ultimately be. But what he does know
is that as soon as these companies start to turn around, it is the
taxpayers who will be paid back first, not the shareholders.

Q And the money, however much it ends up being, is just going to be
borrowed or is there another way to --

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to Treasury for details; I don't know.

Q And what happened -- about six weeks ago, toward late July you said
that there was not an expectation that you would have to do this. What
happened in the interim that made it necessary for this to occur?

MS. PERINO: I think -- I would refer you to Treasury for details as to
what they were looking at. But remember, we asked for a strong
regulator who would go in and be able to look at the books in a full,
transparent way. And over the past several weeks it became clear that
they were not going to be able to continue to function and that this
action was necessary.

Go ahead, Sheryl.

Q Just sort of following on Jim's question, you talked about the next
administration would determine what the appropriate role is for these
companies. Was the President uncomfortable at the outset with even the
idea of these as quasi-governmental agencies? Is there a philosophical
uneasiness with having the government play even a limited role? And I'm
wondering is this kind of a bitter pill for him to have to swallow, that
now the government has to take over the whole thing?

MS. PERINO: Well, he was uneasy with the whole system, which is why in
2002, I think it was, that he first recommended wholesale changes of
GSEs -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- because he fundamentally thought
that it didn't work.

But it's not something he invented, and so he was trying to work best
with the Congress to figure out a way to reform it so that we wouldn't
have to take such actions. As I said, this is not action that we wanted
to take, it was action that Secretary Paulson and others, working with
the President, determined that we needed to take.

So I would refer you back to what he had -- years ago he and members of
his administration thought that we needed to make some changes. We do
believe that the best way for this to move forward is to have Congress
look at how they really want to be involved in the future. This was
allowed to get out of control. And President Bush believes that however
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are addressed by either this Congress or the
next administration, it is crucial that they not be set up in the same
way as they were before.

Q Can you talk to us about some of the steps the President took since
2002, other than simply saying he wanted Congress to reform, to actually
--

MS. PERINO: We proposed legislation -- we proposed legislation. We
tried to move forward. I mean, there's lots of different ways, but
there's only so much in our system that an executive branch can do when
these are congressionally chartered agencies. You have to have
congressional buy-in, you have congressional action.

And just the intrinsic nature of the way that the housing industry was
woven into the fabric of inside the beltway was hard to break loose.
But I think that, going to Jim's question, as you said, the fact that we
have had good cooperation since this announcement was made, I think is
symbolic of the fact that everyone releases that this was not a game
that could continue to be played. And it had to be changed
fundamentally.

Q And just, finally, one more. Was Vice President Cheney involved in
this decision-making at all?

MS. PERINO: I know that he has been -- he had been briefed on it, and
he had been a part of the economic lunch before. But he's been away
this past week, as you know.

Q So is it fair to ask going forward why these entities should even
exist as government-sponsored entities?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that'll be a question that everyone's going
to have to look towards. But one of the things we know that we need is
the ability for affordable mortgage loans to be available, widely
available to Americans.

And I am not an expert in that area, although I do have a mortgage.
(Laughter.) So I'd refer you to the Treasury Department for how they're
going to move forward. And I think a lot of smart people will get
together. A lot of analysis will be done. And I think, hopefully,
people will take a real sober assessment of how they should move
forward, because taxpayer dollars are at risk, but also our fundamental
economy; not just our economy, but the world economy was at risk. And
so this was action that we had to take.

Mike.

Q Dana, I have two questions. One is you mentioned in your opening
comments that the President was continually briefed by Secretary Paulson
about this. Did the White House, did the President, did the President's
economic staff have any role in crafting the actual details of the plan,
or was this basically a Treasury --

MS. PERINO: I'll see if we can get that for you. But I believe a lot
of -- most of it was developed at the Treasury Department, where they
have the experts. And also at OFHEO, the housing agency.

Q And just in the same vein, did the -- in terms of the President's
instruction to the Secretary of the Treasury, did he in the last month
or two have any specific guidelines or principles that he wanted the
Secretary to follow, in terms of how he approached this?

MS. PERINO: I think President Bush and Secretary Paulson are of like
minds in that, one, they want our economy to grow; They want actions to
be taken to make sure it can grow. Two, we have to get through this
housing crisis, and President Bush has been very pleased with the HOPE
NOW program and FHA Secure, ways that our administration has tried to
help Americans stay in their homes. He trusts Secretary Paulson. He
likes the fact that he can have very blunt and candid conversations from
such an expert in the financial world.

So they speak sometimes multiple times a day and the administration --
in our administration we've been able to have great cooperation between
our economic staff here at the White House and at the Treasury
Department, amongst other agencies, including HUD or at the OFHEO.

Mike.

Q Dana, would the President have preferred a permanent, long-term
fix, or is that just the reality of the political calendar that you
needed something to fix it for short-term and then let the next
administration, next-timers do it?

MS. PERINO: You know, what I can tell you is President Bush thinks that
this measure, to take the companies under conservatorship, was the right
way to go at this time.

Victoria.

Q In the Woodward book the President is quoted as saying that a surge
would also help here at home, since for many a measure of success is a
reduction in violence. What role, if any, did domestic politics play in
the formulation of the surge?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- you know, I haven't read the book. I
think what that would refer to would be that the President has said
multiple times that it's very important that your country understand
what the Commander-in-Chief is asking its military to do. And clearly
Americans want to win wherever we send our troops, and we don't want our
troops to be put in harm's way, where they don't have a clear strategy
to win. I think that's probably what it's referring to.

Q It also says that Generals Casey and Abizaid lost the confidence of
the President. Is that true?

MS. PERINO: Why don't you ask Generals Casey and Abizaid that. I don't
think that it's true, but it's not something that I'm going to answer
from here.

Q Since we're on Woodward, the overall impression is left that the
decision to go forward with the surge was one that was taken despite
strong opposition at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military
leadership. What do you -- is that an accurate portrayal?

MS. PERINO: I do think that it is.* I think that the surge is no doubt
one of the most important foreign policy and military decisions that
have been made in a generation. And it was fundamental to the change
that we have seen today in Iraq. We are working now to cement those
gains and to be able to continue to watch Iraq evolve into a country
that can sustain, govern and defend itself.

Having been here and watched somewhat from -- you know, from the
outside, from the press office watching this policy development process
develop over a couple of months, three months, where people were working
around the clock, he brought together -- Steve Hadley and the President
brought together the most -- the best minds in military strategy, in
economic strategy -- from the State Department, from DOD, from all
different places to pull together and try to figure out what was the
strategy that would help us win. And that's the strategy that we
ultimately ended up with.

I think that when it comes to this book, I don't necessarily think that
the conclusions are supported by a lot of the facts in the book. The
surge was not just about sending 30,000 troops; it was a fundamental
change in the way that we were working to secure the population, for
example. And sometimes in Washington when you can't attack the results
of something you attack a process.

I would submit to you that President Bush initiated and oversaw a very
comprehensive, thorough, well-managed process that in some cases and
some people might say that it was too slow in its development. But when
you are making a decision where you are asking young men and women to
put their lives on the line, that it was the right type of assessment.
It was sober; it was very clear-eyed; it was brutal in terms of the
amount of hours.

And I also take issue with the notion about a war within. I can't
imagine that anybody in Washington would be shocked that if you bring
people together to talk about one of the most difficult problems in our
time, that they might have a disagreement over what is the best option.
And in fact, we should all want that to happen.

In addition, there is no possible way that you can have such a debate in
public. We're not going to have this debate on CNN or FOX or MSNBC or
ABC, CBS, NBC. There's just no way to do that. There are discussions
that need to be taken in very private quarters so that everybody can
feel confident that what they're saying and laying out there on the
table will be held in confidence, and that the President can get the
best advice and not be constrained by any options that might be put on
the table.

Thankfully, the policy that the President decided on and announced on
January 10, 2007 has been the right one. And now the President is
weighing his options for the next announcement in terms of troop levels
in Iraq. And I, last week, said that that would be likely this week.
I'm going to upgrade that to probable this week, and we'll probably have
more for you within the next day or so.

Q But what does it say about the judgment of the military leadership
of the country that what you're calling the most important foreign
policy national security decision of a generation faced near unanimous
opposition from the top military leaders?

MS. PERINO: Well, I would be -- I would caution you that it was near
unanimous. I would also point out that President Bush showed tremendous
leadership to be able to ask, what are the other options? What else
could we do? How can we win?

Remember, a lot of conversation during that time was from members of
Congress saying that we are losing and we should leave. And the
President instead said, it is tough, it is horrific in terms of the
violence, but we are staying, and how can we win? And that was the
conversation that went -- that took place those last several months of
2006 and resulted in the policy of the surge.

Q President Sarkozy said just a little while ago that it appears that
he's reached a deal for Russian troops to move out of the buffer zones
in Georgia. Any reaction to that? And would that have any impact on
the civilian nuclear agreement that seems to be on hold and potentially
withdrawn?

MS. PERINO: I saw that Reuters report, so congratulations on getting --
I don't believe -- I don't know that we've had an update from the French
in terms of their meetings. So let us get that for you and respond. On
the Russia 1-2-3 agreement, I don't have anything for you yet, but all
the reporting that I've seen on it is pretty accurate in terms of the
direction this is going. And I don't think that any -- that today's
announcement would change that, but I'll check with State Department.

Q Okay. And the Indian agreement, how does the White House see
proceeding with that, given the -- you mentioned the congressional
timeline is short, has a 30-day legislative gestation period. What do
you see the strategy for going forward?

MS. PERINO: This is an agreement that has enjoyed wide bipartisan
approval for the period of time that we've been working on it. It
really does deepen the U.S.-India relationship on many levels, and it
will help meet India's surging energy needs, as well as help us bring
India along as a solution to helping solve the challenges that we face
on global climate change. It increases jobs for Indians and for
Americans. It increases innovation and competition. Civil nuclear
energy is the way of the future if we want to power this country in a
way that is clean, renewable, and does not emit greenhouse gases.

We urge Congress to act soon on this important measure. Secretary Rice
and her team will be working very closely with members of Congress over
the next several weeks to see if we can get this done in a timely
fashion. I would say that signs for it to be able to pass are good,
given the bipartisan support it's enjoyed in the past. I don't think
that anything has changed in that regard. So if they are able to get
anything done, this could be one of them.

Brianna.

Q Are we going to hear a troop reduction announcement tomorrow?

MS. PERINO: I just said last week I said it was likely, and now I think
it's probable that you'll hear it this week, possibly as early as
tomorrow -- I should say likely, even probable tomorrow. Let me see if
can get you more. I don't know if the President has made a final
decision yet, and once we do we'll be able to get that to you right
away.

Q Is Iraq the subject of the speech?

MS. PERINO: Iraq and Afghanistan, yes.

Q Just to summarize on the economy again, where does -- is the White
House concerned about getting enough money to support the trillion
dollars for the mortgage bailout, the war against terrorism, national
disasters? Would the President recommend raising taxes for the next
administration?

MS. PERINO: The President does not recommend raising taxes. And the
next -- and the candidates can decide for themselves how they want to
announce it. I know where my candidate stands on taxes, and that's why
I think we need to be -- remember, on the disasters, for the natural
disasters, we've replaced the Disaster Recovery Fund -- it's called the
DRF -- we replenished it to $3 billion in May during the supplemental,
which is something that we wanted to do after the depletions from the
previous natural disasters. So I think we're in pretty good shape when
it comes to being able to help both prepare and respond to these natural
disasters.

Q But right now where the government stands, where the White House
stands, there's enough money to have both a guns and butter economy?

MS. PERINO: We're comfortable with where we are, but what we want to
see is a return to job growth, which will help fuel those receipts into
the Treasury Department.

I'm going to go to April, and then I'm going to come down that way.
April -- because you're so impatient. (Laughter.)

Q I'm impatient, too. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: April wins. April.

Q Okay, yes. Dana, going back to the economy and Freddie and Fannie,
you're saying that you've taken this step -- the Bush administration has
taken this step to cut into the broader effects of the economy. Where
is this economy standing now, and what were you looking at, the effects
that could happen, if you did not take this action? If you --

MS. PERINO: Well, I wouldn't speculate, except for that if these
companies would have failed, we would have had even broader concerns in
the economy. In fact, the hit on the --

Q The question --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to forecast that way. You can talk to
economists who can tell you either way what they think. But I think the
widespread reaction to our announcement is that this was the right move
at the right time in order to help shore up the economy. We need to get
past this housing downturn that we've had, and this is one of the ways
that we can do that. So that should help the overall economy as well.

Q And also, on another question, 9/11, the anniversary, this
President's last remembrance of 9/11 as President -- what should the
nation expect from this White House leading into this remembrance?

MS. PERINO: Well, President Bush is very pleased that he's going to be
at the dedication for the opening of the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial. And so
he'll be there on Thursday morning.

Q Anything else? I mean, this is his last one, and it happened under
his watch.

MS. PERINO: I think September 11th will always be a day that lives in
the President's mind every single day. He has never once forgot it
since September 11th; he wakes up every day thinking about it and goes
to bed thinking about it. He has the most solemn obligation of anyone
in the world, which is to protect American citizens from another attack.
Thankfully we've been able to do that, but we know that these terrorists
are out there plotting, planning, and that they have to be right only
once; we have to be right every single time.

So even when he's not President anymore, I am sure that he will think
about it every day, especially as we approach an anniversary where you
take time to reflect on what the families have gone through these past
seven years. And there's nothing that he will be able to say or do that
will heal the hole in their heart, but he will try on Thursday to hold
up their memory so that all of us can pause and reflect on it.

Olivier.

Q A couple for you. First, following up on Jeremy's question about
the India nuclear deal, is there an explicit or even implicit
understanding between the United States and India that a nuclear test by
India would void the agreement, put it on hold, or in any way affect it?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to -- I'll just have to get back to you on that
one.

Q And there's reports of another missile strike in Pakistan by either
U.S. or coalition forces based in Afghanistan. This is now -- I know
you're not commenting about the details of these reports, but why
shouldn't we conclude that there's a pretty dramatic escalation of
coalition operations in that border region over the past month or so?

MS. PERINO: What I would point you to is the increased cooperation
between the Pakistanis, the Afghanistan -- the Afghanis, and the United
States, and also our NATO allies; and everybody recognizing that this is
a fight we need to have. And I would also point you to the fact that
this Pakistani civilian government is now more fully stood up and
stabilizing and taking more action along with us.

Ben.

Q Can I just clarify quickly one point on Iraq? I took you to mean
that an announcement on the next step in Iraq from the President is
probable, except the timing. Brianna asked, I thought, about is an
announcement on troop withdrawals likely, and you said -- did you mean
that that's probable -- the substance --

MS. PERINO: I just meant that the announcement is likely today or
tomorrow.

Go ahead, Mark.

Q Dana, there's a lawsuit being filed today about the Vice
President's official papers. In the administration view, are those
papers covered by the Presidential Records Act, do you know?

MS. PERINO: I'll check in terms of the constitutional law aspects of
those papers. We'll get back to you.

Keith.

Q We've heard from the President countless times that the best people
to make recommendations about the conduct of the war are people on the
ground, the people in the military. How does that square with his --
the way he decided the surge? Was he perhaps before that over-reliant
on people in the military and on the ground?

MS. PERINO: How do you know that there weren't people that were on the
ground in the military or at the Pentagon that were actually
recommending what we ultimately ended up with?

Q Well, General Casey, the Joint Chiefs of Staff --

Q But the --

MS. PERINO: I think that they were tough decisions that were made and
the President did a lot of work and in fact spent a lot of time
overturning every stone to figure out if this was the right move to
make. And eventually everyone came aboard and they have implemented
flawlessly from the Pentagon, in terms of getting Iraq back to a secure
footing, and where we are allowed now to bring troops home based on
success.

Q Did he do too little of that potentially earlier, and relied too
much on these senior military leaders? And could that be part of what
got us in trouble there?

MS. PERINO: I don't believe so, no. I think that this has a lot more
to do with the terrorists and the extremists and what happened in
February of 2006 with the Golden Mosque bombing and the sectarian
violence that spiraled out of control from there, than it does about us.

Look, wars are unpredictable. You have to change strategy at some point
-- at some points along the way. And you saw that when it came to Iraq.
You have to be flexible. And there's lots of different parts to these
wars, too. This is not a military fight alone. There was an economic,
a political and diplomatic surge at the same time. It was not just
sending 30,000 more troops. It was fundamentally changing the approach.

Q And despite the way he decided the surge, he still believes that
the military is -- and the people on the ground are the best people, in
the best position, as he often puts it, to advise him on that?

MS. PERINO: As I just said, he got the advice from the military. But
he also -- there's a lot of other parts to these puzzles when you're
fighting an insurgency and fighting extremists.

We had to continue to work with the members, with the Iraqis on their
economy, which is now doing very well, the diplomatic parts of it, in
terms of how would they work with their neighbors.

And Prime Minister Maliki deserves a lot of credit for all that he has
done to reach out to his neighbors and establish new embassies, have
debt forgiven. And he continues to work on that, and also, on the
political side of things with our provincial reconstruction teams.
Those are teams that come out of not just the State Department, but
other places like USDA, where they have agricultural experts that are
helping the Iraqis plant new crops.

Now Iraq is a very different place from Afghanistan, and that's because
they're just fundamentally different places, especially from where they
started. So there's lots of different strategies that have been bandied
about.

The President came up with the right one in Iraq. And we are working to
increase forces there, and in Afghanistan as well, and working with our
NATO allies to find out the best ways to both win that militarily. But
also, we know that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to the
economy in Afghanistan, and political reconciliation, especially with
the tribal chiefs.

Q Thank you Dana. Will the President veto a continuing resolution if
it still contains a ban on offshore drilling?

MS. PERINO: I think that we need to ask Congress to actually get their
work done and actually pass an appropriations bill, instead of having to
move forward to a CR. This is the longest time it's been in 20 years,
since Congress has actually passed one appropriations bill. It's not a
record to be proud of. And we would like to actually have them do some
of that before we talk about a CR.